Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 7696 of 1979, decided on 9th February, 1985.

---S. 55-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, .199--Complaint. Denial of benefits -Order of continuation of service of employee passed prior to issuance of instructions regarding benefits -Such order being prior in time could not encompass instructions which cane into effect later-Effect-Denial of benefit to employee under such instructions may give separate cause of action to employee but could not be made basis of complaint for disobedience of order passed prior to issuance of instructions-Complaint by employee, held, misconceived in circumstances.

Ch. Inayatullah for Petitioner.

Ch. Muzammil Hussain for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 9th February, 1985.

.-An order was passed on 12th October, 1973 by the Presiding Officer of Senior Labour Court, Lahore in the following terms:-

"In view of the statement of parties, the management is directed to allow the petitioner to work up to the age of 58 years on the basis of his original date of birth shown in the service book. The question regarding the date of birth of the petitioner is left undecided. This question shall be decided by the department as agreed by the parties. The period from the date of proceeding on L. P. R. to the date of resumption of charge by the petitioner shall be treated as leave due as admissible under West Pakistan Govern ments Servants Leave Rules, 1955. The petitioner is directed to report for duty on 18th October, 1973."

In pursuance of this order the petitioner was allowed to continue in service and with a further change to the age of retirement, he superan nuated at the age of 60 and thus retired from service in 1981. The grievance of the petitioner now is that the petitioner was not granted the benefits available to him in pursuance of a policy letter issued by the Government of Punjab on 27th September, 1974. For this purpose he brought an application to the Labour Court under section 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. This application was rejected by the Punjab Labour Court No. 1 on 27th July, 1978. The petitioner went in revision before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal but revision petition was dismissed on 20th May, 1979. The Labour Appellate Tribunal found that while the petition before the Labour Court was competent it merited dismissal on facts. The petitioner has now invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

2. It is evident from the record that the petitioner is complaining of disobedience of the orders passed by the Punjab Labour Court of 18th October, 1973 on the strength of a policy letter issued in September, 1974. This is obviously a contradiction in terms. The order of 1973 could not encompass any instructions which came into effect later, that is, in 1974. The denial of benefits to the petitioner, if any, under the instructions issued on 27th September, 1974 may give a separate cause of action to the petitioner but it cannot be made basis of a complaint for disobedience of orders passed in 1973. The petitioner's complaint to the Labour Court was misconceived. No writ, therefore, can be issued under these circumstances, in this case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

H. B. T

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.